ITAT Amritsar Judgments — November 2023

The Tribunal held that CBDT instructions and circulars regarding condonation of delay in filing returns and Form 10B were applicable. The assessee should not be deprived of the benefit of exemption under Section 11 due to a technical mistake.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid and void ab initio due to the lack of a specific charge. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal found that both the assessment order and the appellate order were passed ex-parte, denying the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the transaction was between real brothers, who are considered 'relatives' under the Act. Therefore, Section 56(2)(vii) was not applicable to this transaction, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the DVO's valuation report was invalid as it was furnished beyond the prescribed time limit. Furthermore, the report was based on CPWD rates instead of PWD rates, which is not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the DVO's valuation report was invalid as it was furnished beyond the prescribed time limit. Furthermore, the report was based on CPWD rates instead of PWD rates, which is not permissible.

The Tribunal held that while admissions made during a survey can be disputed, they form a basis for assessment unless retracted with strong evidence. The CIT(A) did not objectively deal with the AO's contentions. Therefore, the matter was remanded for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the circumstances. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without affording the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, thus violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied an opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that while admissions made during a survey can be disputed, they form a basis for assessment unless retracted with strong evidence. The CIT(A) did not objectively deal with the AO's contentions. Therefore, the matter was remanded for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the legal grounds regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings and the non-supply of reasons recorded. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) did not properly appreciate the facts concerning the addition under Section 69A.

The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of interest, finding no basis for it. For the brought forward losses, the Tribunal noted that ITAT had ruled in favor of the assessee in prior years and remanded the issue for verification and allowance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing details like PAN, confirmations, books of accounts, and bills for the sundry creditors. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard and had plausible reasons for non-compliance. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the High Court and Supreme Court had declared the trust forged and ordered its activities to cease. Considering the pending appointment of a receiver and the ongoing legal proceedings, the Tribunal decided to abate the appeals.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative society from investments in a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The restriction under Section 80P(4) does not apply to such income.

The Tribunal decided to remand the matters concerning additions of Rs. 12,74,722/- and Rs. 15,00,000/- back to the AO for further consideration. The addition of Rs. 7,56,140/- on account of GP rate was deleted.

The Tribunal decided to remand the matters concerning additions of Rs. 12,74,722/- and Rs. 15,00,000/- back to the AO for further consideration. The addition of Rs. 7,56,140/- on account of GP rate was deleted.

The Tribunal decided to remand the matters concerning additions of Rs. 12,74,722/- and Rs. 15,00,000/- back to the AO for further consideration. The addition of Rs. 7,56,140/- on account of GP rate was deleted.

The Tribunal decided to remand the matters concerning additions of Rs. 12,74,722/- and Rs. 15,00,000/- back to the AO for further consideration. The addition of Rs. 7,56,140/- on account of GP rate was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the High Court and Supreme Court had declared the trust forged and ordered its activities to cease. Considering the pending appointment of a receiver and the ongoing legal proceedings, the Tribunal decided to abate the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the High Court and Supreme Court had declared the trust forged and ordered its activities to cease. Considering the pending appointment of a receiver and the ongoing legal proceedings, the Tribunal decided to abate the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the High Court and Supreme Court had declared the trust forged and ordered its activities to cease. Considering the pending appointment of a receiver and the ongoing legal proceedings, the Tribunal decided to abate the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the High Court and Supreme Court had declared the trust forged and ordered its activities to cease. Considering the pending appointment of a receiver and the ongoing legal proceedings, the Tribunal decided to abate the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the High Court and Supreme Court had declared the trust forged and ordered its activities to cease. Considering the pending appointment of a receiver and the ongoing legal proceedings, the Tribunal decided to abate the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the High Court and Supreme Court had declared the trust forged and ordered its activities to cease. Considering the pending appointment of a receiver and the ongoing legal proceedings, the Tribunal decided to abate the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the High Court and Supreme Court had declared the trust forged and ordered its activities to cease. Considering the pending appointment of a receiver and the ongoing legal proceedings, the Tribunal decided to abate the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the High Court and Supreme Court had declared the trust forged and ordered its activities to cease. Considering the pending appointment of a receiver and the ongoing legal proceedings, the Tribunal decided to abate the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to be heard, thus contravening Rule 46A(3). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that Section 36(1)(va) applies to employee's contribution, while employer's contribution falls under Section 43B. Since the employer's contribution was paid before the due date of filing the return, it should be allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found from the assessee's premises during a search. Since the material was found from a third party (M/s AIMPL), the assessment order under Section 153A was bad in law.